Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
An eternal universe and the 'special plead' of God [cosmology]
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FrumiousBandersnatch" data-source="post: 74630370" data-attributes="member: 241055"><p>I didn't say <em>anything</em> about validity. </p><p></p><p>But since you mention validity, I do consider that an explanations (hypotheses) about the real world that are based on, and congruent with, successful physical theories, which can be checked for mathematical and physical consistency, and which have some explanatory power, are <em>better</em> (by the criteria for argument to the best explanation) than hypotheses that have no basis in, or congruence with, any successful physical theories, cannot be checked for consistency - not least because they're intrinsically ill-defined and/or inconsistent, which are less parsimonious, which have no explanatory power, and which raise many more unanswerable questions than they answer. YMMV.</p><p></p><p>No, they don't; this has been explained more than once. </p><p></p><p>That was my point.</p><p></p><p>If they're indistinguishable mathematically, then Occam's Razor applies. You could change the name if it makes you happy, but a supernatural ontology is redundant.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FrumiousBandersnatch, post: 74630370, member: 241055"] I didn't say [I]anything[/I] about validity. But since you mention validity, I do consider that an explanations (hypotheses) about the real world that are based on, and congruent with, successful physical theories, which can be checked for mathematical and physical consistency, and which have some explanatory power, are [I]better[/I] (by the criteria for argument to the best explanation) than hypotheses that have no basis in, or congruence with, any successful physical theories, cannot be checked for consistency - not least because they're intrinsically ill-defined and/or inconsistent, which are less parsimonious, which have no explanatory power, and which raise many more unanswerable questions than they answer. YMMV. No, they don't; this has been explained more than once. That was my point. If they're indistinguishable mathematically, then Occam's Razor applies. You could change the name if it makes you happy, but a supernatural ontology is redundant. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
An eternal universe and the 'special plead' of God [cosmology]
Top
Bottom